Get guest nameservers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the required services:read scope and the important interpretation caveat that own mode returns null custom addresses and is not a live observation of the guest's resolver file, which prevents an agent from misreading the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: identity of the resource, semantics of the returned modes, then the interpretation caveat and auth requirement. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and the most decision-relevant information (what the tool actually returns) comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by describing the return structure (nsData.type plus ns1-ns4 addresses) and its edge case. Combined with the stated auth scope and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the orderNo property already documents the pattern, length bounds and an example. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the server's saved guest DNS resolver configuration') and pins down the exact shape of the payload (nsData.type own/custom, ns1-ns4). The caveat that this is stored configuration rather than an observation of the guest's resolver file cleanly separates it from the setter (set_guest_nameservers) and from other DNS getters in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a prerequisite ('Requires services:read') but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_dns_zone or set_guest_nameservers. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated, which is the definition of minimum viable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.